Re: [ck] [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU feature, -D7

[Jack O'Quin]

Cal <hihone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Jack O'Quin wrote:
>> I notice that JACK's call to mlockall() is failing.  This is one
>> difference between your system and mine (plus, my machine is UP).
>> As an experiment, you might try testing with `ulimit -l unlimited'.
>
> I went for the panic retraction on the first report when I saw the
> failures in the log.  With ulimit -l unlimited, jack seems
> happier. Before the change, ulimit -l showed 32.
>
> At what feels like approaching the end of the run, it still goes clunk
> totally so, dead and gone!
>
> <http://www.graggrag.com/200501270420-oops/>
>
> I'll re-read the mails that have gone by, and think about the next step.

You seem to have eliminated the mlock() failure as the cause of this
crash.  It should not have caused it anyway, but it *was* one
noticeable difference between your tests and mine.  Since
do_page_fault() appears in the backtrace, that is useful to know.

The other big difference is SMP.  What happens if you build a UP
kernel and run it on your SMP machine?
-- 
  joq
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/